It is not just overt price, but availability. At the present time there is a critical shortage of normal saline and Ringer's lactate solution. This outrageous situation is expected to last for at least another year. How many people are going to die because pharmaceutical companies can't, or rather won't, make up sterile IV bags with 0.85% sodium chloride?
Really tough to follow a well and long known script to make sure there are no contaminants, and that the solution is sterile.
I don't have the time or inclination to point out all of your fallacies. Two will have to do.
1) Drones need not have the abilities and limitations of airplanes. Quadracopters are quite capable of keeping up with the twists and turns a human can make. Though heading into a building might foil them at the present. Drones the size of a preying mantis could be launched from the mother drone and follow an individual into a building. If that tech isn't here, it will be soon.
2) One of the differences between a drone and a human pilot, is that it takes one man to pilot a plane. Multiple drones can be set up to monitor enormous areas with just a few people. Then if something significant occurs, the time and places of interest can scanned by computer for face recognition, following an individuals movements.
There are many other issues as to just why drones are a far greater privacy risk than planes. I leave it to the reader to think of some.
There are more types of chemist than just about any other occupation in the world, so there is no such thing as a simple chemist. A general chemist would be an appropriate appellation.
Science = bad only for the ignorant. Most would have never been born were it not for the sciences, and of those that managed to come into the world alive, 2/3 would have left it before age 5.
The living third had horrible lives. Infested by all sorts of parasites and bacteria. Head and body lice alone must have made life miserable. For most, clothes were worn until they fell apart, and were rarely washed. Baths were considered unhealthy (as well as immoral), and a great number of people had two baths. One when they were born, another on their wedding day. I can not imagine the crusts and odors that would have built up. Perfume chemists were (and remain) in high demand.
I could go on endlessly, but those who despise the sciences know nothing of science or history.
In the Ok bombing, the FBI claimed that traces of explosive evidence were a match for that found in the remains of the truck. Yet the head of the explosives section, Dr. Frederic Whitehurst testified under oath that the testing done by the FBI lab could distinguish between urea found in fertilizer, and that found in urine. Whitehurst also testified that many cases and tests came under extreme political pressure to "show" that the test was positive for a particular person.
Richard Jewel, the actual hero of the Olympic Park bombing, was named as a person of suspicion in that event. Persons of suspicion are not supposed to be publicly named. He won a rather large lawsuit, and of course was innocent.
The anthrax attacks had five people named, one after another, as the guilty party. Again massive pressure and subterfuge was placed in attempts to prove each of these individuals guilty. Ivins was finally pressured into suicide with no real evidence, and the case closed. Ivins was almost certainly not the guilty party, and would have required the help of four or five additional people working for a year to achieve this attack. The NAS (National Association of Sciences) said that Ivins did not have access to the equipment or containment units that would have been required. A bunch of terms, particularly "ultracentrifuge" were bandied about to make it appear as though he was guilty. As a biochemist, I had an ultracentrifuge in my lab section. So did my ex-wife. Big deal, except that it sounds malevolent.
Ivins reputedly used acetaminophen to kill himself. Doing so produces a long and extremely pain full death. Any scientist knows how to commit suicide with little or no pain with common objects found in the home or lab.
The internet is today's public square. It speaks, and it is easy to guestimate it's truth by at hand research.
The NY Times has finally admitted that the Bush cabal committed torture and murder. They have known this from their readers since the early 2000's. They have known that the CIA and NSA were wire taping the US public since at least 2002, but decided not to publish because it might affect the 2004 elections -- of course it would have.
The present "public square" tries to keep the politicians clean, and there should be more of them rather than less. After all it is more than Sisyphean task to keep this brood of war mongers and thieves clean.
For many it is not the money, but the quality. I stopped watching television at all about 10 years ago. With the box with the most channels, I can find something that justifies my time. Can be enjoyable or instructive.
How does Rogers even know that NK wasn't attacked in return? Does anyone think that NK would admit it, or that the US would brag about it -- it would give NK an excuse to shell, bomb, or invade SK.
SONY has terrible security, refuses to improve it, and practically invites crackers in.
Worse, Sony has committed massive numbers of rootkit attacks, on audio CDs played on computers, against Americans and others. If everybody whose computer was damaged by Sony, attacked in return, Sony could give up computers for ever.
War doesn't work well for the losers or the winners. Talking, no matter how inane, is a far better solution than destruction, maiming and death.
That the law has any meaning anymore? People are beaten and arrested for looking at a cop. If you can't even look at what is in public, without risking a beating, then just what "freedoms" do you have?
We have created reputed rights to all sorts of things, because calling them privileges are said to hurt some peoples self images. I do not question the validity, good or bad of said grants. But making them "rights" are the mechanism by which the real rights as outlined in the Constitution ad its amendments are diluted into meaninglessness.